I like the idea, but the truth is that I think that the billions of dollars needed to do it would be asking for too much risk up front, and I don't think they would be so inclined as to want a nuclear power opperation from it's description. It'd be better to start out small, with a small ship and a small reactor, and a small community, and then make things more efficient and grow big as the market expands and creats new options.
Actually, I was thinking about that. The things is that the US desperately needs a hydrogen policy, and is completely hamstrung from implementing one at home. Also, I suspect that there are many government officials who would love to offload some of these freedom loving ex-pats to somewhere else other than the states where they can influence politics in unhappy ways for both democrats and republicans, not to mention that any terrorist threat from freedom loving expats who are also capitalistic is not only highly unlikely, but the least of their worries right now. I really wounld't be supprised if such a venture had the full support of the US government.
I don't understand why this parent
comment 10938663
post is rated -1 offtopic at this time.
I think talking about nuclear power at sea selling hydrogen back to the mainland has everything to do with this post even if people don't like the political overtones. Some of the followups are also rated down. Does someone have an agenda or what?
Seriously though, I herd Toshiba was going to donate a nuclear reactor to a small town in Alaska to get a foothold in the industry in the states - I'm curious if they would consider a ship at sea?
I think the reality is that there are so many unecissary regulations in the states, that nuclear power is impossible - and likely will be for a long time. I myself wish I had enough money to buy a ship and put a nuclear reactor on it out in international waters and sell safe and simple hydrogen back to the mainland. It would also be a cool way to reach the next generation of liberty - I mean we haven't really seen any new methods implemented to improve individual freedom and liberty (especially economic) in government in nearly 200 years. I wish I could start a nation at sea.
1) First off, it amazes me how many customers there are who don't have security. For example, If I just have a user account on your system on your network - I still have access to your whole network unless you specifically firewall me off.
2) I prefer be firewalled off, so I know their stuff won't mess with ours and our stuf won't mess with theirs - but the truth is most customers don't want to go thru that effort or cost. Also, unfortunately, most have no clue what their doing other than following a checklist. This becomes painfully obvious when somthing doesn't work and you need their help to diagnose and fix it.
3) The customers who have their own specialized VPN systems that require us to connect only thru that - may think they're more secure, but their not because it means that we half to use plain passwords for access from their provided box rather than out own encrypted 1024 bit key tunnel originating from an internal server.
4) At least for me, the boxes I work with have only our stuff on it. That means if things go to hell on that system it is me and my company that suffer the responsibility. So in terms of their network and other critical systems, having admin really changes very little - other than perhaps permiscous mode, and listening on used ports or ones lower than 1024.
5) It amazes me how many customers don't understand scp and ssh, or even their own VPN's.
6) One time we had a system that we didn't have access to, and it got a virus. I would have loved to take responsibility for it, but I couldn't because I can't do much to prevent that if I don't even have Admin access to the box. And also, it came from one of their internal servers - well what do you want me to do about that? Most of the time, I find that we need more protection from a customers internal network - then they need from us.
I think the reality is that the easier we make it for people from India to come here and get high paying jobs, the harder it will be for companies in the USA to outsource there with low paying jobs. In that sense alone H1B's will probably help the job market allot. Not to mention that large pools of telented people brought together tend to make opportunities and business where there was none before.
Finally, I have never seen any statistical evidence that immigrant laborers take jobs or drive down pay, but I've seen plenty of evidence coorelating immigration with massive economic gains and activity. I think we're crazy not to let in as much H1B's as possible.
I've used both solaris and linux alot, in fact I was one of the admins on an E10K with over a TB of data at one of my previous jobs. (btw - they were absolutely not high-availability material unlike what sun would like you to believe)
But the fact is that the industry doesn't need scalability right now, they need "farm ability" - as in server farms and clusters, and in that space sun/solaris gets their but kicked.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen companies spend a small fortuene for a high end sun box with a platinum contract - where a few simple changes they could turn it into a commodity x86 farm that would not only be 1/10th the cost, but more reliable because if a server goes out - the others can pick up.
In fact, even if you needed scalability in some theoretical appliaction that couldn't be farmed - the simple truth is that the max x86 speed increases by over 30% every year. How in the hell fast do you need to scale?
It's all about the hardware
on
Sun-isms Debunked
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Right now the only thing that differentiates Sun from the rest of their market place is their expensive high end hardware. They need to squeese as much out of it as possible till it caves into the x86 - 64 commodity CPU market. Then their ability to gain high profit margins will be gone, as well as their position to compete in the computer space. Part of that differentation is solaris, that's way they need to squeese as much out of it as they can even if Linux is the one taking over the server-space industry.
Re:Gun rights primer
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Your right, I should have said continued....
OK here, this document makes it very clear that the threat of gurilla warfare forced a policy of reconcilation instead of occupation.... part 3 and part 4
and heres one about why the Japaneese decided not to invade the wide and unprotected american coast line http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob 0109.h tml
Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.
Well, to take that to an extreme - if everyone had a nuclear weapon, I wonder how many politicians would play black against white, young against old, man against women, and rich against poor for political gain.
Hmm, perhaps gun controll is not about regulating or public good, but rather about not wanting to reap the hatred that you sew.
Yeah, unfortunately, most people fail to understand that the constitution and its amendments was written with the late 1700s in mind.
Yeah, and other people fail to understand that certain simple truths don't change even when time does.
1) For example in mid 1800's after the civil war, many people wanted to continue a military occpation of the south, but decided it was unfeasable and impossible because of widespread private gun ownership.
2) In the 1980's the USSR had extreme difficulties considering any military strategy against the United States, because they had absolutely no idea about how to deal with over 100 million private gun owners.
OK, before the flame wars start - I just want to say that when the US declared independence and the British attacked - they encountered something never before seen in the history of human kind - armed citizens.
That's way today, the 2nd amendment clearly says the right to bear arms should not be adbridged and not "the government gives you the right to bear arms". Because it is implicitly understood that the right to secure your rights is a right that exists above government, not because of it.
Re:maybe it's just bloated?
on
How Tomcat Works
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Maybe I'm just out of it, but the thing that kills me here - is I have yet to see how this is going to provide some functionality in the real world that couldn't be done easier and simpler 1000 other ways.
Oh, and also - all this reminds of when I herd ESR say in a talk that the markets cry for java was really a cry for FOSS. While I've never been a great fan of ESR - I think maybe he was right. The whole idea of java was to move the development center of gravity away from the proprietary desktop. Heck firefox and PHP have alone have done 10 times what java has to accomplish that. And php isn't even client side for chrissake.
ANd, also I think it was a mistake to force the java solution to be a high level language. What they should have done is made some standadrized client side byte codes that did simple functionality like IO, and things like AND, OR, NOT, +, -, GOTO, etc and put it in a simple sceure "box", and then leave to the higher lever implementations to "compile" the byte codes and add layers on it. - Then the market could have sorted out the best high level solution. As it is, all the 'simplicity' and 'uniformity' we were supposed to get from java has simply been thrown out the window because of all the layers of high level crap you half to go thru to get things done.
IMHO, the whole direction had completely thrown KISS out the window - either me or them are going insane.
You know, during the 1800's there were those who believed that the entire purpose of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cottin gin to expand their plantations for unlimited groth and profit. However, what the industrial revolution really demanded was a mobile and educated workforce - the anti thesis of the plantation system. At first they made laws so harsh you couldn't even teach a black person to read and extended slavery to forever, then they tried to regulate all the industries in the north and force them to respect slave ownership rules in the south, and when that failed they tried to break themselves off from the union and fence themselves off from the rest of the world causing all hell to break loose.
Well today, there are those who believe that the entire purpose and meaning of the information age is leverage their IP holdings to the four courners of the earth for unlimited growth and profit. But what the information age really demands is the uninhibited and unrestricted flow of information. At first they passed harsher laws until a person who coppies a CD can get worse penalities than a violent murderer, then they extended the terms of copyrights to effectively forever, then they tried to fence themselves off from the rest of the world using Digital Rights Managment technology. Well all hell is about to break loose.
That's nice, but if they don't want to use copyright, they've always had the option of releasing code into the public domain.
That's what RMS, the author of the GPL did while at MIT, and then someone took a copy of his code, added enough modifications to it to copyright and locked him out from using the improvements. Hence, hired a lawyer to draft the GPL and used it from then on.
The simple truth is that copyrights are more like a government regulation that screws up commerce and business than some kind of free merket property right like MS would like you to believe. That's why the GPL which undoes much of the dammage done by copyrights in terms of controlling information flow is becomming such a force to be reconed with.
Like in most cases, freedoms and free markets are linked at the hip and the GPL is no exception. What's driving the rappid adoption of FOSS is pure old fasioned market forces and the service sector making the best use of technology at their disposal. Plane and simple.
Really good network technology already exists, and the military simply can not out compete the market.
Keeping the Internet working is already a national security concern anyhow, and it would be allot more cost effective to beef up, and add real security and redundancy to what is already out there than to start from scratch.
Other things like encrypted sattelite data, could be distributed allot more effetcively and redundantly with a good p2p network than than zillion bits of bandwidth.
I think the real point is that even though copying is illegal, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing it. And it's far more evil to restrict free copying than there is to freely copy.
Deep inside we know that, Microsoft knows that, and the people who work for them know it - and today that truth manifested itself in just another way.
actually one of the coolest things about the algorithim I liked wasn't the compression feature, but the ability to expand or increase the size of processed immages without the appearence of pixilisation (spelling?) If I renember, it took forever to compress, but it expanded very quick.
yeah, taxes fck up the private sector. thats why the euro is kicking the dollar's ass lately.
Funny thing is, they're value to the dollar is the only thing proping them up, employment and economic growth sure aren't
why do you think rich people are going to provide AMERICAN jobs?
For the same reason they provide south koreans jobs even though north koreans are 10 times cheaper - an environment friendly to economic liberties.
thats right, who needs allies. We won WWI and WWII on our own. hell, its not like we need to trade with these countries.
Funny thing is, we were wrong to ignore hitler so long, wern't we?
The debate over whether or not we should provide the funding is one thing, but why should the president say precisely where it should go?
Well, when you give the govt controll over peoples money - then don't be supprised when they make arbitrary decisions with it.
I'm not talking about hydrogen....and what do tax rates have to do with your car?
I'm not talking about cars - it still blows your myth about the oil.
Excellent, place women's rights before your pocket book. Get many dates?
Yeah, and they seem to appreciate that I'd rather spend my money on them than the govt.
The way the current system works, health insurance companies make a 20-30% profit and can basically charge whatever they care for coverage. Who can opt out of the system? Apparently you think this is fair.
The way the current system works is that insurence companies are micro regulated meaning that if you want to get competition in that industry - the barriers to entry are almost impossible to overcome. Too much govt created the problem, now you want more to fix it, sheesh.
he's had four years to recover from it, how many more does he need?
4 more, thank you
You don't get to pick and choose justification for war as is convenient at a given moment. Maybe you think another reason was better, but he sold the american people on a lie.
Sure you do, it was still a compelling possibility and the burdon of proof was on saddam - all the better he didn't get it.
well, there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing on haliburton's part - overcharging and simply being told to give it back! no bid contracts to the VP's former employer....you think thats a coincedince? Yes, clinton used haliburton, on a tenth the scale.
Yeah but unless theres some overwhelming proof, i really don't care cause it's missing the forest for the trees.
... The previous eight years under clinton
and he accomplished nothing.
Excellent! You side with the court martialed abusers in this case! I'll just let your statement stand.
OK fine, but the point was you were blowing it out of proportion.
Considering your absurd moments of "gimme my money, then come rights and a planet to live on" i think you've expressed what is most important to you. I'll let you return to swimming in your money bin.
And that pretty much is your whole problems right there - you just assume on faith that if someone wants controll over the money they earn that they must be some self centered greedy bastard out to exploit whoever. As if on faith, people with economic freedoms are inherently evil. Not a good premise for any economicly successfull society.
Slashdot Mirror
And how long until a Shell Oil tanker 'accidentally' collides with your ship?
Ironically, one of the most under looked benefits of nuclear power is that it could make oil refinement a hell of a lot cheaper and more efficient.
I like the idea, but the truth is that I think that the billions of dollars needed to do it would be asking for too much risk up front, and I don't think they would be so inclined as to want a nuclear power opperation from it's description. It'd be better to start out small, with a small ship and a small reactor, and a small community, and then make things more efficient and grow big as the market expands and creats new options.
Actually, I was thinking about that. The things is that the US desperately needs a hydrogen policy, and is completely hamstrung from implementing one at home. Also, I suspect that there are many government officials who would love to offload some of these freedom loving ex-pats to somewhere else other than the states where they can influence politics in unhappy ways for both democrats and republicans, not to mention that any terrorist threat from freedom loving expats who are also capitalistic is not only highly unlikely, but the least of their worries right now. I really wounld't be supprised if such a venture had the full support of the US government.
I don't understand why this parent comment 10938663 post is rated -1 offtopic at this time.
I think talking about nuclear power at sea selling hydrogen back to the mainland has everything to do with this post even if people don't like the political overtones. Some of the followups are also rated down. Does someone have an agenda or what?
Cool, anyone up to donation a nuclear reactor?
Seriously though, I herd Toshiba was going to donate a nuclear reactor to a small town in Alaska to get a foothold in the industry in the states - I'm curious if they would consider a ship at sea?
I think the reality is that there are so many unecissary regulations in the states, that nuclear power is impossible - and likely will be for a long time. I myself wish I had enough money to buy a ship and put a nuclear reactor on it out in international waters and sell safe and simple hydrogen back to the mainland. It would also be a cool way to reach the next generation of liberty - I mean we haven't really seen any new methods implemented to improve individual freedom and liberty (especially economic) in government in nearly 200 years. I wish I could start a nation at sea.
1) First off, it amazes me how many customers there are who don't have security. For example, If I just have a user account on your system on your network - I still have access to your whole network unless you specifically firewall me off.
2) I prefer be firewalled off, so I know their stuff won't mess with ours and our stuf won't mess with theirs - but the truth is most customers don't want to go thru that effort or cost. Also, unfortunately, most have no clue what their doing other than following a checklist. This becomes painfully obvious when somthing doesn't work and you need their help to diagnose and fix it.
3) The customers who have their own specialized VPN systems that require us to connect only thru that - may think they're more secure, but their not because it means that we half to use plain passwords for access from their provided box rather than out own encrypted 1024 bit key tunnel originating from an internal server.
4) At least for me, the boxes I work with have only our stuff on it. That means if things go to hell on that system it is me and my company that suffer the responsibility. So in terms of their network and other critical systems, having admin really changes very little - other than perhaps permiscous mode, and listening on used ports or ones lower than 1024.
5) It amazes me how many customers don't understand scp and ssh, or even their own VPN's.
6) One time we had a system that we didn't have access to, and it got a virus. I would have loved to take responsibility for it, but I couldn't because I can't do much to prevent that if I don't even have Admin access to the box. And also, it came from one of their internal servers - well what do you want me to do about that? Most of the time, I find that we need more protection from a customers internal network - then they need from us.
I couldn't help thinking that we've had an awfull lot of sun spots lately. Sunspot Activity at 8,000-Year High
The simple fact is that there is a muhch stronger coorelation to sun spots and weather patterns than there is to human behavior and cliamte.
Maybe American "greed" is causing the sun to flair up too!
I think the reality is that the easier we make it for people from India to come here and get high paying jobs, the harder it will be for companies in the USA to outsource there with low paying jobs. In that sense alone H1B's will probably help the job market allot. Not to mention that large pools of telented people brought together tend to make opportunities and business where there was none before.
Finally, I have never seen any statistical evidence that immigrant laborers take jobs or drive down pay, but I've seen plenty of evidence coorelating immigration with massive economic gains and activity. I think we're crazy not to let in as much H1B's as possible.
I've used both solaris and linux alot, in fact I was one of the admins on an E10K with over a TB of data at one of my previous jobs. (btw - they were absolutely not high-availability material unlike what sun would like you to believe)
But the fact is that the industry doesn't need scalability right now, they need "farm ability" - as in server farms and clusters, and in that space sun/solaris gets their but kicked.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen companies spend a small fortuene for a high end sun box with a platinum contract - where a few simple changes they could turn it into a commodity x86 farm that would not only be 1/10th the cost, but more reliable because if a server goes out - the others can pick up.
In fact, even if you needed scalability in some theoretical appliaction that couldn't be farmed - the simple truth is that the max x86 speed increases by over 30% every year. How in the hell fast do you need to scale?
Right now the only thing that differentiates Sun from the rest of their market place is their expensive high end hardware. They need to squeese as much out of it as possible till it caves into the x86 - 64 commodity CPU market. Then their ability to gain high profit margins will be gone, as well as their position to compete in the computer space. Part of that differentation is solaris, that's way they need to squeese as much out of it as they can even if Linux is the one taking over the server-space industry.
Your right, I should have said continued....
.... part 3 and part 4
b 0109.h tml
OK here,
this document makes it very clear that the threat of gurilla warfare forced a policy of reconcilation instead of occupation
www.gsb.georgetown.edu/faculty/sweeneyr/ wp/Chapter%208_Civil%20War%20Reconciliation.doc
and heres one about why the Japaneese decided not to invade the wide and unprotected american coast line
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoo
Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.
Well, to take that to an extreme - if everyone had a nuclear weapon, I wonder how many politicians would play black against white, young against old, man against women, and rich against poor for political gain.
Hmm, perhaps gun controll is not about regulating or public good, but rather about not wanting to reap the hatred that you sew.
Yeah, unfortunately, most people fail to understand that the constitution and its amendments was written with the late 1700s in mind.
Yeah, and other people fail to understand that certain simple truths don't change even when time does.
1) For example in mid 1800's after the civil war, many people wanted to continue a military occpation of the south, but decided it was unfeasable and impossible because of widespread private gun ownership.
2) In the 1980's the USSR had extreme difficulties considering any military strategy against the United States, because they had absolutely no idea about how to deal with over 100 million private gun owners.
OK, before the flame wars start - I just want to say that when the US declared independence and the British attacked - they encountered something never before seen in the history of human kind - armed citizens.
That's way today, the 2nd amendment clearly says the right to bear arms should not be adbridged and not "the government gives you the right to bear arms". Because it is implicitly understood that the right to secure your rights is a right that exists above government, not because of it.
Maybe I'm just out of it, but the thing that kills me here - is I have yet to see how this is going to provide some functionality in the real world that couldn't be done easier and simpler 1000 other ways.
Oh, and also - all this reminds of when I herd ESR say in a talk that the markets cry for java was really a cry for FOSS. While I've never been a great fan of ESR - I think maybe he was right. The whole idea of java was to move the development center of gravity away from the proprietary desktop. Heck firefox and PHP have alone have done 10 times what java has to accomplish that. And php isn't even client side for chrissake.
ANd, also I think it was a mistake to force the java solution to be a high level language. What they should have done is made some standadrized client side byte codes that did simple functionality like IO, and things like AND, OR, NOT, +, -, GOTO, etc and put it in a simple sceure "box", and then leave to the higher lever implementations to "compile" the byte codes and add layers on it. - Then the market could have sorted out the best high level solution. As it is, all the 'simplicity' and 'uniformity' we were supposed to get from java has simply been thrown out the window because of all the layers of high level crap you half to go thru to get things done.
IMHO, the whole direction had completely thrown KISS out the window - either me or them are going insane.
You know, during the 1800's there were those who believed that the entire purpose of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cottin gin to expand their plantations for unlimited groth and profit. However, what the industrial revolution really demanded was a mobile and educated workforce - the anti thesis of the plantation system. At first they made laws so harsh you couldn't even teach a black person to read and extended slavery to forever, then they tried to regulate all the industries in the north and force them to respect slave ownership rules in the south, and when that failed they tried to break themselves off from the union and fence themselves off from the rest of the world causing all hell to break loose.
Well today, there are those who believe that the entire purpose and meaning of the information age is leverage their IP holdings to the four courners of the earth for unlimited growth and profit. But what the information age really demands is the uninhibited and unrestricted flow of information. At first they passed harsher laws until a person who coppies a CD can get worse penalities than a violent murderer, then they extended the terms of copyrights to effectively forever, then they tried to fence themselves off from the rest of the world using Digital Rights Managment technology. Well all hell is about to break loose.
That's nice, but if they don't want to use copyright, they've always had the option of releasing code into the public domain.
That's what RMS, the author of the GPL did while at MIT, and then someone took a copy of his code, added enough modifications to it to copyright and locked him out from using the improvements. Hence, hired a lawyer to draft the GPL and used it from then on.
The simple truth is that copyrights are more like a government regulation that screws up commerce and business than some kind of free merket property right like MS would like you to believe. That's why the GPL which undoes much of the dammage done by copyrights in terms of controlling information flow is becomming such a force to be reconed with.
Like in most cases, freedoms and free markets are linked at the hip and the GPL is no exception. What's driving the rappid adoption of FOSS is pure old fasioned market forces and the service sector making the best use of technology at their disposal. Plane and simple.
Really good network technology already exists, and the military simply can not out compete the market.
Keeping the Internet working is already a national security concern anyhow, and it would be allot more cost effective to beef up, and add real security and redundancy to what is already out there than to start from scratch.
Other things like encrypted sattelite data, could be distributed allot more effetcively and redundantly with a good p2p network than than zillion bits of bandwidth.
I think the real point is that even though copying is illegal, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing it. And it's far more evil to restrict free copying than there is to freely copy.
Deep inside we know that, Microsoft knows that, and the people who work for them know it - and today that truth manifested itself in just another way.
actually one of the coolest things about the algorithim I liked wasn't the compression feature, but the ability to expand or increase the size of processed immages without the appearence of pixilisation (spelling?) If I renember, it took forever to compress, but it expanded very quick.
If I renember, there were sone very innovative things done with fractal immage compression, but it sorta dead-ended because of patent issues. see here
yeah, taxes fck up the private sector. thats why the euro is kicking the dollar's ass lately.
Funny thing is, they're value to the dollar is the only thing proping them up, employment and economic growth sure aren't
why do you think rich people are going to provide AMERICAN jobs?
For the same reason they provide south koreans jobs even though north koreans are 10 times cheaper - an environment friendly to economic liberties.
thats right, who needs allies. We won WWI and WWII on our own. hell, its not like we need to trade with these countries.
Funny thing is, we were wrong to ignore hitler so long, wern't we?
The debate over whether or not we should provide the funding is one thing, but why should the president say precisely where it should go?
Well, when you give the govt controll over peoples money - then don't be supprised when they make arbitrary decisions with it.
I'm not talking about hydrogen....and what do tax rates have to do with your car?
I'm not talking about cars - it still blows your myth about the oil.
Excellent, place women's rights before your pocket book. Get many dates?
Yeah, and they seem to appreciate that I'd rather spend my money on them than the govt.
The way the current system works, health insurance companies make a 20-30% profit and can basically charge whatever they care for coverage. Who can opt out of the system? Apparently you think this is fair.
The way the current system works is that insurence companies are micro regulated meaning that if you want to get competition in that industry - the barriers to entry are almost impossible to overcome. Too much govt created the problem, now you want more to fix it, sheesh.
he's had four years to recover from it, how many more does he need?
4 more, thank you
You don't get to pick and choose justification for war as is convenient at a given moment. Maybe you think another reason was better, but he sold the american people on a lie.
Sure you do, it was still a compelling possibility and the burdon of proof was on saddam - all the better he didn't get it.
well, there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing on haliburton's part - overcharging and simply being told to give it back! no bid contracts to the VP's former employer....you think thats a coincedince? Yes, clinton used haliburton, on a tenth the scale.
Yeah but unless theres some overwhelming proof, i really don't care cause it's missing the forest for the trees.
and he accomplished nothing.
Excellent! You side with the court martialed abusers in this case! I'll just let your statement stand.
OK fine, but the point was you were blowing it out of proportion.
Considering your absurd moments of "gimme my money, then come rights and a planet to live on" i think you've expressed what is most important to you. I'll let you return to swimming in your money bin.
And that pretty much is your whole problems right there - you just assume on faith that if someone wants controll over the money they earn that they must be some self centered greedy bastard out to exploit whoever. As if on faith, people with economic freedoms are inherently evil. Not a good premise for any economicly successfull society.
Don't tell me China wouldn't try if they didn't have the opportunity.